The Queen v Howson [2001] FCA 114

The Queen v Howson [2001] FCA 114

The Crown did not establish that the sentencing discretion was wrongly exercised. The unexplained delay between the June 1994 conduct and the May 2000 information, together with the respondent's changed life circumstances in the United States and residual medical and/or psychiatric problems, made it inappropriate for the appellate court to impose any actual custodial sentence, and justified the recognisance release order for the whole sentence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence in a Criminal Matter / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'recognisance Release Order' 'custodial Sentence' 'unexplained Delay' 'mitigating Circumstances' 'crimes Act 1914 (cth)']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'recognisance Release Order' 'custodial Sentence' 'unexplained Delay' 'mitigating Circumstances' 'crimes Act 1914 (cth)']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence in a Criminal Matter / Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, bearing in mind s 19A(c)(i) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), it was appropriate for the sentencing judge to make a recognisance release order effectively for the whole period of a one year sentence.' 'Whether the sentencing discretion miscarried because some part of the sentence should have been served in custody.' "Whether unexplained delay and the respondent's subjective circumstances justified appellate non-intervention."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown did not establish that the sentencing discretion was wrongly exercised. The unexplained delay between the June 1994 conduct and the May 2000 information, together with the respondent's changed life circumstances in the United States and residual medical and/or psychiatric problems, made it inappropriate for the appellate court to impose any actual custodial sentence, and justified the recognisance release order for the whole sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'The appellant to pay the costs of the respondent.']